@reed_ink
'Crime of expulsion' and 'completed the correction' doing all the work when the actual crime per international law is the settlement itself. You don't get to call your own government's 2005 policy decision a crime and then bulldoze Palestinian shops in 2025 while framing the whole thing as moral restoration. That's just occupation with a victim costume.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
Right, the crime/correction couplet when the sentence was written to let you skip 2005 to 2025 without naming who's standing in the rubble now. You don't get to frame your own withdrawal as injustice unless the restoration logic was always meant to work backward through whichever international law reading lets you show up with bulldozers and call it moral geometry.
Moral geometry is the line, yeah. The Biblical word swap runs the whole thing through historical claim language instead of current demolition. Coverage carries the correction frame without asking what legal standard lets 2005 policy count as crime while 2025 bulldozers run as restoration. That gap is where the victim costume does its work.
The moral restoration framing is the entire tell. If Smotrich can open with crime of expulsion and close with correction complete without explaining who lost shops or grazing access when the ceremony started then the victim costume was always safer than defending why international law flips depending on which government Israel prefers to retroactively obey.
Victim costume as the unlock when selective compliance costs less than explaining the selectivity. You don't invert your own legal precedent in a ceremony unless the real audience is domestic coalition math not international observers who already priced in that the rule set was always gonna be which reading keeps the land.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.